DISTRICT COURT HAMILTON. Wednesday, Nov. 3rd, 1875. [Before F. D. Fenton Esq., District Judge.]

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 540, 4 November 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT HAMILTON. Wednesday, Nov. 3rd, 1875. [Before F. D. Fenton Esq., District Judge.]

Isaac Coatss v Te Paitu. — This vu a claim for £36 15s. Mr Hay, for plaintiff, stated that .the defendant tad paid, £9 into court and wouM return a mowing macfiine. which plaintiff had accepted, Mr Whiuker for defendant stated that these were the terms agreed upon. The case was adjourned without oorts, defendant tq return the machine iv the meantime.

W H Butlib v W Laibd.— Thia wu a claim of £50 6s 6d for work done. At a former sitting of the Court the matter wai referred to arbitration by mutual consent. Tlie award wu brought up last Court day. The arbitrators gate £16 4i 6d to plaintiff, and orderei that plaintiff should pay costs, amounting to £22 6s. Some discussion took place regarding the question of costs abiding the event, and His Honor expressed an opinion, which he said was borne out by the profession, that some of the rule§ of the District Court were beyond the power of the Chief Justice to make. In reply to His Honor, Mr Whitaker laid the arbitrators had allotted costs against plaintiff be* cause he had giren defendant so much trouble, and had repeatedly refuted offers of payment. Mr Madden applied, under seotiou 129 of the District Courts Aot, that execution be stayed until next Court day, in order that reasons might be adduced why the award should be let aside. Mr Whitaker pointed out that the application was premature until •xeoution wai applied for. It was understood that no application should be made by Mr Whitaker for execution, until Mr Mttdden had time to apply at the next sitting to set aside the award, notice of the grounds to bo siren to Mr Whitaker.

P Ls Qcrsne vOM Harknbis. — This wu • claim for £20, Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr Mad* den for defendant. Mr Madden read a letter dated Oct. 2Ut, from defendant it»ting that be could not attend ihe Oourtf, but that he wai a minor, having been born in 1854. MrHny complained that Mr Madden had not giren notice of the abandonment of the defence, and thui saved a great deal of trouble. Mr Madden laid ho had been engaged at Alexandra. Judgment for plaintiff,, costs, £0 19s.

Jonx 3latbb vF Li Quksne.— Claim £29 17s for tho detention of certain materials and furniture belonging to plaintiff who is 5 cabinet maker, and £5 in addition for loss by detention. It was alleged bj plaintiff that he had borrowed a sum of £7 5s at 10 per cent interest from defendant, and had left the tools to be gold, the procee Is to be credited to plaintiff. He bad since ropuid the £7 5* and applied for the return of the tools and furniture, but defendant refused to surrender them until a sum of £11, which plaintiff alleged was due on a running account, had been piid. Mr Madden for plaintiff, Mr Hay fop defendant. John Slater gave eTulenc* ar to the articled, deposited with defendant, the t^r/ns, the prjces realised for four '* soffoys and couches." In cross examination, Mr Haj produced a document headed in tl.e farm of a bill, in which the articles were enumerated, and a rcoeipt stamp on the document was signed by plaintiff for the sum of £7 sa. Plaintiff in reexamination stated that the document was merely an invent >rj, and intended on his part as a conditional snle of the goods, which remained asja security for the £7 sj, ho undertaking to complete certain sofas which were to bs sold by defendant for plaintiff's benefit. The witness created some little amusement, and gave a great deal of unnecessary trouble by his garrulity, and a habit of entering into irrelevent details. Philip Le Queane was examined by Mr Madden, and stated that the transaction was an absolute sale. In explanation of certain accounts which he h^d rendered to Slater, and in which credit was giren fora certain amount or account of a portion of the goods sold, the witness said he had left it open for Slater to redeem the goods by repaying the money. la reply to Mr Hay, witness said plaintiff came to him when his (plaintiff's) goods had boon seiaed under distress | warrant, and asked for a loaa of £7 5a he called his attention to the ttate of his account, but ultimately agreed to lend the tnot&y. Made out the dooument at plaintiff's request. Plaintiff understood at the time that it was a sale. Witness offered to let plaintiff have the goods back at cost price if he would complete the sofas within a month. Would rather hare the money now owing than the goods, as they were dead stock on hi) bands. Did not charge interest or storage on the goods. Plaintiff never came and tendered the money or demanded the goods. £4 0s 6d was now due. Was prepared to return the goods now if plaintiff would pay the £7 5i and the other account current. Jacob Bauer, Cabinet Maker, stated that he delivered a letter from Mestrs Madden and O'Neill (letter produced.) The letter was a demand for the goo Is. Defendant said *' There is no answer." Did not tender any money. Had none to offer. The Court said there was nothing but costs left to fight about. Mr Madden said the case was brought because defendant would neither give up the goods, or permit plaintiff to selL Re-examined by Mr Hay defendant said that by returning the articles and giving plaintiff credit for the amount realized there would be a balance due from plaintiff of £11 sa. Had frequently offered to give up the goods if the money were repaid. Mr Madden addressed the cou»-t. His Honor held that there had not been sufficient testimony adduced to up»et the receipt The only question was the charging for the materials, and the accuracy of the entries must be gone into at some future date when the account was finally olosed. He would give judgment for defendant on the broad ground that the receipt had not been upset.

W. Cumminq v B. B«ll.— Claim, £28 14s Mr Hay for plaintiff. Mr Wkitaker aaldjdefend. ant had instructed him to defend, but was now absent. Plaintiff depoied to hating supplied good* now sued for. Defendant's written ordei* produced. Judgment for plaintiff, costs, £G 12$,